What would Geralt Sapkowski do in key episodes (The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings)
!POSSIBLE SPOILERS! IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE GAME, DO NOT READ FURTHER!I apologize in advance if this question has already been discussed somewhere. Just interested in the opinions of those who read the saga of the witcher.
What storyline do you think, in accordance with your image, character, worldview, etc., would the real Geralt, the White Wolf, the beloved hero created by Sapkowski in his novels, follow? They say that the game was created without his participation, which is a pity ... I would like to know his opinion on this matter). By key episodes, I mean:
1) The choice of an ally in the second chapter (a) Roche b) Iorvet)
2a) The decision of the fate of Henselt (let Roche kill him or stop him)
2b) The decision of the fate of Stennis (let the crowd kill him or stop him)
3a) Deciding who to save: Anais or Triss
3b) Deciding who to save: Saskia / Phillipa or Triss
4) Deciding the fate of Sheala
5) Deciding the fate of Leto
Well, except that you can add the fate of Iorweth / Roche in Loc Muinne.
In general, I look forward to your opinions. Consideration and discussion of other game moments is also welcome.
According to the book, Geralt has always been neutral. In the game, you are not given the right to neutrality (1 question or that side or that one). So if Sapkowski had taken part in the creation of the script, most likely he would have completely changed it. But the developers created their own game (albeit based on the book). Each player chooses his own path for himself, and it's simply not realistic to say how the same White Wolf from the book would have acted.
YarikMo97
Neutrality in the game can be observed - the choice of side is meant more as a way to save Triss and get to Summer, rather than fighting on the side of one or another group.
[2La] Alex
Well, depending on how you understand it. It's still not possible to send both sides and go your own way
1 Most likely, Geralt would have chosen Roche, since he helped him escape execution.
2 I don’t know what Geralt himself would have done, but if Sapkowski had written his book and if there had been exactly the same moment in his book, he would have killed the king for sure. IMHO.
3 Here Geralt would not interfere in vain. These investigations ... why does he need it?
4 Triss. Roche will go for Anais, and Geralt must save his beloved.
5 Similar to the previous point.
6 Xs, but most likely would have left alive, I think. Geralt seems to have no particular complaints about Sheala.
7 Peace. Well, here one hundred percent, Geralt would not kill Summer, well, no way.
Who disagrees, dispute, I'm also interested in what others think.
PS Huge respect to the author of the topic.
Kazak3330
I don’t agree about Triss - only when I played for the first time it was useful to save her (Summer will save her anyway - it’s better to do something useful then.) An alternative to saving her is to help Roche (revenge on Detmold - for which Geralt also has motives) or disenchantment of Saskia (an occupation just for the Witcher).
Have you even read the book? We are now talking about what Geralt himself would do, who is not so much a character in a game as a character in a book saga, if you understand me now. And Geralt, firstly, does not know that Triss will save Summer, and secondly, it is Roche who needs to kill Detmold, and Geralt's life is much more important than Triss's death than the death of the magician, who personally did not do anything to Geralt.
Kazak3330
I don't remember switching to YOU ​​in a conversation with you. Imagine reading, and as far as I remember, Geralt was also involved in political affairs several times there. If you missed it, then we have nothing more to talk about.
[2La] Alex
But still, Geralt was always more interested in his personal issues than political ones, if we are talking about the book White Wolf.
YarikMo97
Solving his personal problems, Geralt regularly got into political games.
[2La] Alex
I can't help but agree with this, but still you will agree that Geralt was always more interested in his own problems.
“I don’t remember that I switched to YOU ​​in a conversation with you.â€
Smari is so proud. What are you, a woman?
[2La] Alex
I don't agree, this is exactly what the developers didn't think of. In part 1, freedom of action was much better implemented.
Kazak3330
Shut up, it smells like shit.
YarikMo97 For some
reason - to save Triss without giving a damn about all the consequences - just like Geraltovsky.
[2La] Alex
This is just the ending itself, and earlier he can't go his own way. In part 1 you initially went your own way
YarikMo97
Everything is relative here. In the book, he also tried to go his own way (when he entered the city of golden towers in order to save Ciri), but it turned out to be a slightly different route. The game is done in a similar way - there are options for how to achieve your goal - how exactly the player decides.
[2La] Alex
Cool. Now you are a man. Probably everyone will respect you now. You know how to put people in their place. Actually.
[2La] Alex
I agree, but there are not as many of them as we would like + each option does not radically change anything, unlike the book. Well, let's not argue, all the same, the game came out wonderful, even despite a couple of minor drawbacks.
I think Geralt would adhere to a "chaotic neutral position". At a critical moment, of course, if his very close friends were in danger of death, Geralt could freak out as usual, chop heads, and then cry over his difficult Witcher fate, as once in a book said Yennefer.
In any case, he would definitely not be the king's "bodyguard" or something like that. Here, from the very beginning of the game, the concept and plot are not logical in relation to the Witcher. Geralt's inner world does not correspond to his book image. CD Project turned the Witcher Geralt as a butcher mercenary.
So alas...